Paris Agreement Climate Change

Paris Climate Agreement Comes Into Effect

U.S. not on track to meet Obama's promised greenhouse gas cuts

|

ClimateChangeConceptKiosea39Dreamstime
Kiosea39/Dreamstime

The European Parliament voted to ratify the Paris Agreement on Climate Change on Tuesday. This approval means that the agreement has crossed the threshold for coming into effect by being ratified by at least 55 nations emitting 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. Initially, it was expected that the Paris Agreement would not be approved by a sufficient number of countries with the requisite emissions totals until 2018. Instead the Paris Agreement will come into force in less than a year. Officially, the Paris Agreement will come into effect one month after passing this threshold. This is remarkably fast since even the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiated in 1992 took almost two years before coming into effect.

As a consequence of this approval, the next U.N. climate change meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco that opens on November 7 will now be the first meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, or CMA1 in U.N. parlance. This is significant because countries that have ratified the agreement have a decision-making power over all substantive, procedural, administrative and operational matters, while all others are observers.

The goal of the agreement is to keep the world from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial average. According to most temperature datasets, global average temperature is is already hovering around 1 degree Celsius warmer than pre-industrial levels. Many researchers climate researchers believe that the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions promised by countries that have ratified the agreement fall far short of meeting that goal. In the Washington Post, Glen Peters, a professor at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, observed, "At the moment, most studies suggest the current pledges put us on a pathway to around 3 [degrees Celsius]. The current pledges move us away from high end scenarios like 4C, but they are not sufficient to keep us below 2C."

Under the Paris Agreement, countries are supposed to ramp up their commitments to cut greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels. However, a new study by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory finds that pursuing current policies the U.S. is unlikely to meet President Obama's commitment to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels.

In addition, the U.S. presidential election on November 8 is a wild card. Clinton supports the Paris Agreement and Trump says that he would withdraw from it. If Trump is elected, the CMA1 in Marrakesh will feature much wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.

Note: I will be reporting daily dispatches from the CMA1 at Marrakesh, starting on November 14.

Advertisement

NEXT: Alaska's 'Panty Peeler' Beer Under Fire for Promoting 'Rape Culture'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We ratified a document that uses Celsius as a measurement? Where has my country gone, indeed.

    1. Explains why ou aren’t Cyst of Etiquette.

    2. “We ratified a document that uses Celsius as a measurement? ”

      I didn’t hear of the Senate ratifying this. I suspect they did not.

      “the U.S. is unlikely to meet President Obama’s commitment to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels.”

      How is that our problem? Obama made the commitment; let him try to keep it.

      Unless I just missed the Senate ratification vote. No? Didn’t think so.

      As part of a good neighbor policy to the world, we should send out copies of our constitution, so that foreigners know how our government is supposed to work, and who is authorized to make agreements for the US gov.

  2. You see, this is what happens when you have too many politicians who don’t have anything useful to do. Send 99% of these parasites home and most of the world’s problems will solve on their own.

  3. Can we just all agree that a whole lot of people need to be killed in order to save Gaia? I mean, if you don’t agree it’s no big deal. You’ll just be the first against the wall.

    -Environazi

    1. “Note: I will be reporting daily dispatches from the CMA1 at Marrakesh, starting on November 14.”

      I look forward to this, Ron. Thanks for the heads up.

      1. The problem with Ron’s reporting from these climate gabfests is that he plays it like a regular reporter.
        Hunter S. Thompson should be his model for these thing.

        Marrakesh motherfukrs

        1. Failing that, at least report with an emphasis on hypocrisy, show all the extravagance, the private jets, the massive wastes of electricity. Give it the “Pope advocating for the poor while sitting on a chair made out gold” sort of treatment.

        2. If only Hunter were around for just this sort of thing.

      2. As this scam goes on Happy-Face Ron enjoys these paid vacations to exotic places….

    2. Yeah, a coalition of nations unwaveringly devoted to decreasing emissions below whatever standards meet 2 degrees Celsius before whatever arbitrary time period they chose sounds pretty close to an open declaration of war to me.

      Certainly well between the lines of any thousand-year reichs, 5-yr. plans, and convert by the sword policies.

      1. Using an average created by theoretical temperatures sampled only a few times over a few million years as one’s metric for how to control an uncontrollable thing in the short term is such a fools errand it can only be a cover for an ulterior motive. It’s such a ludicrous exercise they might as well be saying ‘we will control the output of the sun going forward from today’.

        1. “it can only be a cover for an ulterior motive”
          The most annoying thing is that no matter what gets done or not done, this story will continue to be background noise for the next 50+ years.
          I’m all for not pissing in our pool, but let’s apply some recursive Pareto principle with technological innovation loops and move on.

      2. Yeah, a coalition of nations unwaveringly devoted to decreasing other people’s emissions

        Seriously, most of that coalition is only in it because (a) they have no intention of decreasing their own admissions and (b) they are hoping for a big payout from the developed nations for “climate change” damage.

      3. You’ve given me an idea for a book somebody else should write. Suppose the Third Reich had survived, either by not being so dickish as to invade Poland, Hitler dying, not killing 6M Jews, who knows what … how would they handle modern crap like the Kyoto Protocol, cultural appropriation, EU suffocation …. I’d buy it if it were handled half-intelligently with a healthy does of sarcasm.

        1. Well, for starters most of those things would never have existed because there would be no need to justify implementing a totalitarian top-down regime: they would already have one.

          1. I was thinking of having had a Manhattan Project which threw up a stasis curtain around Nazi Germany and which only failed recently to release the humor. Or the universe rejected the very concept of a Nazi Germany and time-traveled it to the future. See, something humorous yet plausible.

        2. One thing for sure is that CO2 levels would be lower, with probably half the human population having been exterminated and the half that is left living in extreme poverty…

          1. ding ding ding!

            We have a winnah!

            *grabs a large stuffed Panda from the top shelf and tosses it to Nova*

            I’ve been saying it for a while now, but some seem to think that killing a whole lot of people is totally fine as long as you’re doing it to save Gaia. That’s because I don’t think that foreseeable consequences are unintended consequences. All the alternative solutions are just as horrific, with things like forced sterilization being on the table. Gee, I wonder if only the ‘best’ genetics will survive the purge?

  4. The certainty of the failed models is charming.

  5. I’m going to assume that this agreement is nothing more than a handout to the third world who are not obligated to reduce their economic productivity. This would do little more than shift more manufacturing to third world countries that lack the statutes and regulations that the left say are so instrumental in preventing climate change.

    1. “This would do little more than shift more manufacturing to third world countries that lack the statutes and regulations that the left say are so instrumental in preventing climate change.”

      Yeah, but they also like iStuff and their degree in feminist studies isn’t exactly paying off in the real world. So, maybe a few peasants in the sweatshop is ok. Libertarians would just put them to work in a monocle factory anyway.

    2. If you’re the type that really believes in central planning, you couldn’t have a more perfect excuse than Climate Change to institute it world-wide.

      1. That’s why it’s not exactly a crackpot theory that after 1991, Marxist parasites found a new host in the environmentalist movement. What better way to destroy capitalism than to insist on the existence of a never-ending threat to humanity posed by economic freedom?

  6. “Many researchers climate researchers believe that the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions promised by countries that have ratified the agreement fall far short of meeting that goal.”

    I know Bailey is well aware of this, but, just for the record, the United States did not ratify the “agreement”.

    “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

    —-U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2

    1. Ya, how could Trump “withdraw” from an agreement that has never been entered into?

      1. Even Trump likes him some token gestures and grandstanding.

        1. “Even”?

    2. So, yes, the treaty has no binding authority. But TOP.MEN get to jet around the world and do pretend things on the tax payers dime and the useful idiots get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside. What’s not to love?

    3. That was true, but these days the Senate has essentially given up it’s part of the treaty process and handed it over to the Executive branch in practice. Which, legally speaking, means that no one should count on us staying in the agreement very long since if someone wanted to really push the issue I doubt it would stand for long. (I.E. Trump, or whomever comes after Herself.)

  7. This is an excellent opportunity to ask my fellow Reasonoids whether the following is an example of Wiki editors playing funny with the facts.

    “Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history.

    . . .

    A further distinction embodied in U.S. law is between self-executing treaties, which do not require additional legislative action, and non-self-executing treaties which do require the enactment of new laws.[1][5] These various distinctions of procedure and terminology do not affect the binding status of accords under international law. Nevertheless, they do have major implications under U.S. domestic law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

    1. So, even if all that is to be believed, my understanding is that this agreement can only be enforced through executive orders–is that correct?

      Somebody help me understand the distinction–can the President enforce the agreement by way of the EPA or not?

      1. KS: You may want to take a look at my analysis of what President Obama says he is doing with regard to the Paris Agreement.

        1. “As I predicted, President Obama is asserting that he is concluding an executive agreement and so he can commit the U.S. to joining the Paris Agreement because it is merely an extension of our obligations under the already ratified UNFCCC.”

          I’m trying to imagine what a legal challenge would look like if some future President uses the Paris Agreement targets as a justification for significantly increasing preexisting regulatory standards or fees, and what I’m seeing looks like pretty thin gruel.

          Just because we want the Constitution to protect us doesn’t mean it can or will. My bet would be that the courts wouldn’t strike it down so long as the increases were based on authority given to the EPA (or some other agency) by preexisting law.

          Maybe the best hope of people who don’t want the President regulating CO2 emissions is to amend the Clean Air Act to specifically exempt CO2 emissions or something. That would require a Congress and President who really didn’t care about the environmental/conservationist vote come reelection.

      2. Legally? No.

        In reality? Definitely!

        Do you think the politicians in congress are suddenly going to change course and stop him? Much better to allow him to batter people who will then be motivated to show up at polls to reelect Congressman Shmuckatelli who promises to keep fighting the evil Obama on their behalf. He never actually does anything, mind you, because if he solved the problem, then people would have less of a reason to fight for him.

        Obama is the Republican politicians’ Goldstein. They never can defeat him, and the fight against him is never-ending and demands sacrifices on the part of the voters.

      3. It’s Wikipedia, so the default answer is that ‘it’s wrong’.

        1. I’ve read stuff there about communist China that could only have been written by Chinese communists.

          1. Indeed. Or entries for various cities that were clearly written by that cities Chamber of Commerce.

      4. I am too lazy to look that up right now so let me just repeat this: Want a king who makes decrees? Fine, but a new king means new decrees.

        1. I think most proggies would be happy to have a King, Queen, or whatever the non-gender specific term is for a monarch. The Clintons seem to be the first American Royal Family for them.

    2. I couldn’t really say how accurate it is in general, but this much, at least, is definitely a stolen base:

      Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).

      The ability of states to make “agreements” with Congressional consent, but not treaties, casts zero light on the ability of the President to make agreements with Congressional consent.

  8. ” I will be reporting daily dispatches from the CMA1 at Marrakesh, starting on November 14.”

    Why Marrakesh? Is that where all of the climate scientists live? Or is this just another junket for hypocrites?

    1. Junket. Bailey you’ll have to inform the readers here how the hookers and blow are in Marrakesh.

  9. As responses to the Report from Iron Mountain go this one isn’t that bad.

  10. Paris Climate Agreement Comes Into Effect

    Oh, yes! I’m feeling the effects already!

    Under the Paris Agreement, countries are supposed to ramp up their commitments to cut greenhouse gases,

    I am ramping up my commitment! Look at me! See? I’m ramping!

    Dog and pony show.

    However, a new study by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory finds that pursuing current policies the U.S. is unlikely to meet President Obama’s commitment to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels.

    Exactly what KIND of policies that would impose a reduction in productivity of 28% would pass Congress, I have to wonder. When president Andrew Shepherd talked about reducing carbon emissions, the tightwad only committed to a 25% reduction and that only because leftists in 1995 loved to masturbate over that notion. Now we’re talking about an even higher reduction as if it were feasible. I tell you, reality is indeed stranger than fiction!

  11. So, one of the major news stories that is going unreported because Reason Magazine is misallocating its reporters is the scandalous collapse of electrical power generation in South Australia as a major storm battered the province. The collapse in power generation caused casters full of molten steel to abruptly shutdown (meaning the steel has to be jackhammered out and there will be no steelmaking for months), operating theaters with active surgeries suddenly went dark etc.

    The provincial government blamed the outage on downed power lines caused by the failure of a number of HV transmission towers, in effect saying it was an accident that was an outlier.

    The operator of the Australian Power Grid has published a preliminary report. Apparently, the religious obsession of politicians a& the green cult with building windmills was the actual culprit.

    1. The predicted weather front moved through SA on the afternoon of Wednesday 28 September 2016, including high winds, thunderstorms, lightning strikes, hail, and heavy rainfall.

      The weather resulted in multiple transmission system faults. In the short time between 16:16 and 16:18, system faults included the loss of three major 275 kV transmission lines north of Adelaide. Generation initially rode through the faults, but at 16:18, following an extensive number of faults in a short period, 315 MW of wind generation disconnected (one group at 16:18:09, a second group at 16:18:15), also affecting the region north of Adelaide.

      The uncontrolled reduction in generation resulted in increased flow on the main Victorian interconnector (Heywood) to make up the deficit. This resulted in the Heywood Interconnector overloading. To avoid damage to the interconnector, the automatic-protection mechanism activated, tripping the interconnector. In this event, this resulted in the remaining customer load and electricity generation in SA being lost (referred to as a Black System). This automatic-protection operated in less than half a second at 16:18. The event resulted in the SA regional electricity market being suspended.

      1. Basically, the windmills were being battered by the storm and automatically shut down to protect the generators from damage, and the interconnector that takes power from a less compromised (i.e. more dependent on nuclear and fossil fuels) network was overloaded. And because the power produced by windmills is of such poor quality vis a vis voltage and frequency, the windmills were utterly useless in reenergizing the network.

        This is the future that the morons like Al Gore, Barack Obama and Hillary CLinton are boldly moving towards.

        See Reason, you could actually report a real news story and pretend it’s about the election!!!!!!

        1. Semi related:
          I have a smug friend who drives 2 plug-ins. He got a little mouthy last week, and I finally broke it to him that his cars actually run on coal.

          He had never heard of Path 46. Every few days, I throw up a new picture of the Navajo Generating Station on his Facebook page.

          1. I have to know, did that seriously never occur to them? Next I suggest you ask him if his plug-in’s have Lithium-Ion batteries, then show him a lithium mine as a follow up.

            1. He’s one of those ThinkProgress/MoveOn types. He thinks what he’s told to think.

              He also spent over 10 grand on solar panels. This part of the coast has 3 months of dense fog in the summer, and he was surprised that he wasn’t making shitloads of electricity.

              1. It sounds like they have more money than sense. A not-so-uncommon condition for those who think they know better for the entire planet, and thus ‘accidentally’ kill a whole lot of people with their ‘intentions’.

            2. Then show him the statistic that 98% of those batteries end up in a landfill.

          2. “…a smug friend who drives 2 plug-ins.”

            That is a lot of words to say ‘moron’.

        2. Thanks for the quality post Terran, I enjoyed the read.

        3. Eh, the quote just says the wind “disconnected”, not that it shut down to protect itself. “Disconnected” could mean a lot of things. Anyway, it’s not like other types of plants don’t routinely trip, and cause losses of a lot more than 300 MW, nor does it mean that other types of plant are immune to weather conditions.

          1. If you read the other sites’ documentation of the whole fiasco, you will come across numerous descriptions of how the windmills came to be offline. It was overspeed protection after the wind became too strong.

            And I encourage you to read the whole report. Particularly what percentage of their power grid was being supplied by unreliable and poorly-controllable windmills at the beginning of the event.

            1. It’s actually somewhat ironic if you really think about it. When the wind becomes strongest, your wind power generator shuts off for safety.

              You would be hard pressed to make up this type of retardation. Not to say there aren’t obviously some really, really good reasons for these things to shut down at super high speeds but the very fact that they are 0% effective in a situation that would be ideal for maximum generation means this technology was never really thought through.

    2. The collapse in power generation caused casters full of molten steel to abruptly shutdown (meaning the steel has to be jackhammered out and there will be no steelmaking for months),

      No problem, they can just build everything out of Rearden Miracle Metal?.

  12. “The goal of the agreement is to keep the world from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial average.”

    Average of what? And what is this mythical number?

    “According to most temperature datasets, global average temperature is is already hovering around 1 degree Celsius warmer than pre-industrial levels.”

    Which data sets? The invented ones? The doctored ones? The adjusted ones? The computer model projected ones?

    “Many researchers climate researchers believe that the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions promised by countries that have ratified the agreement fall far short of meeting that goal. In the Washington Post, Glen Peters, a professor at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, observed, “At the moment, most studies suggest the current pledges put us on a pathway to around 3 [degrees Celsius]. The current pledges move us away from high end scenarios like 4C, but they are not sufficient to keep us below 2C.”

    Many researchers believe…based on what? Computer model projections? I bet not even that. Most studies suggest…more weasel words means more computer projections, computer projections that have a historical record of 100% incorrectness.

    The mountain of ‘that aint science’ here is staggering. They won’t call it global warming anymore yet that is what they keep projecting. I wonder why that is?

      1. According to your story there, no. It is udder insanity.

    1. The computer model projected ones?

      Cut carbon emissions such that the global average doesn’t exceeds 2 degrees in the next century?

      *smashes computers with models running above 2 degrees.”

      Think globally, act locally. Thank you.

    2. Yeah, they call it ‘climage change’ now because that makes the people who don’t believe in it sound even dumber. Plus, they get to pretend that those who don’t believe now don’t even believe that the climate ever changes even though they know full well it’s the human element & the extent of the danger that most ‘deniers’ have issues with. Factually speaking, the ‘consensus’ that useful asshats like Jackand Ace will cite includes people who think the climate changes but are unsure of the human element.

      So yeah, they are disingenuous from the top down. Climate gate should have proven that, but nope. Down the memory hole it goes. They still trot out various hockey stick graphs and no one bats an eye.

    3. But we *are* about 1?C warmer than the temperature readings from the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800’s. At least until they started messing with the records to make it look like past fluctuations of temperature (such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period) didn’t happen and it was all nice and smooth until we started putting all the additional CO2 into the air after WWII. So they use the maximum difference when they want to say how “bad” the totals are and the minimum difference with the altered records when they want to make it look as bad as possible for the “sudden” changes.

      Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. Does additional CO2 in the atmosphere increase the average ambient temperature? Yes. Have we put more CO2 into the atmosphere than there would have been otherwise? Yes.

      Does that mean we’re all going to burn up and destroy the Earth and it’s all mankind’s fault? Not hardly.

      There’s actually a very simple test. Have their models accurately predicted future conditions as they’ve come to pass?

      No, they haven’t. Ipso facto, they do *NOT* have a valid model and predictions made on that basis are worthless. So whatever warming we *have* been responsible for (and we have, some, no doubt about that) has been mitigated in one way or another by the rest of the climactic interactions.

  13. The goal of the agreement is to keep the world from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial average.

    Which, of course, is insanity. Depending on what you count as the pre-industrial average, you are likely to pick up “Little Ice Age” temperatures.

    There are also pre-industrial periods where the temperature was warmer than it is now, as best we can tell.

    1. I think the nail in the coffin is that so far the proponents of man made climate change haven’t managed to explain how atmospheric CO2 levels were as high as 2,000-3,000 PPM (instead of our current ~400PPM) during the middle of one of our biggest ice ages.

      Their explanation, which I find to be imminently telling, is that it was related to ‘solar output’. Yeah. Einstein reborn.

      1. Don’t the models ignore solar output as a possible source?

        1. It doesn’t really matter if they do or don’t: so far their models haven’t been predictive even in the short term which is all one really needs to say in order to confirm that they don’t know what they’re talking about yet.

          Ron has published a few pieces I’ve read that indicate that we’re on track with the minimum forecasts of a few different possible timelines, but that would also mean that the alarmist camp is totally wrong on what the projected ‘calamity’ will be from global temperatures rising since they are all predicated upon the maximum forecasts.

          Essentially, they want you to believe the worst case scenario is true when the only theory that’s even halfway credible is the best case scenario. And even saying that much is making a lot of concessions to some pretty questionable data.

  14. Is everyone being a ridiculous fucking moron on this thread? Good, just checking. Wouldn’t want the world to go nuts.

    1. You’ve arrived, so we have one, now.

    2. *Lights the Jackand Ace ‘whataboutism’ signal*

      You’re welcome, Tony.

    3. Re: Tony,

      Is everyone being a ridiculous fucking moron on this thread?

      Why? Are you looking for a soul mate?

      Better try “eHarmony for Volcano God Activists”

  15. U.S. not on track to meet Obama’s promised greenhouse gas cuts

    Obama can promise until he’s blue in the face. If there ain’t no treaty, it ain’t binding. End of discussion.

    1. Clinton supports the Paris Agreement and Trump says that he would withdraw from it

      Now you understand the danger of putting one person in charge of international agreements on behalf of 330,000,000 people?

    2. Unless the judges he (and his successor) appointed decide to impose the rules anyway, much as liberal SCOTUS judges like basing their decisions on foreign law rather than that pesky old Constitution.

  16. current policies the U.S. is unlikely to meet President Obama’s commitment to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels.

    All we need is a few more Obama-style recoveries and we’ll be on track.

    1. Want to make a Marxian’s head explode? Ask him or her what does he or she expect a worker that receives the new benefit of a higher minimum wage to buy with it, after these environmentalist policies are imposed?

      1. Recycled, organic products and more green energy. That was easy.

        1. Not healthcare … insurance. Big difference. The insurance costs so much and covers so little that you can’t afford the actual health care.

  17. While reducing emissions is all fine and good, you know where this is going. They’ve already stated that Obama’s plan won’t be enough to keep warming within two degrees. Then they will say that whatever the next more draconian plan may be isn’t sufficient, and so on…It is impossible to predict future warming based on CO2 levels because CO2 isn’t the only factor AND its impossible to predict what the temperature will be by 2100 anyway, even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow.

  18. The Luddite manifesto.
    How about we reduce CO2 emissions by making it illegal for progressives and liberals to exhale?
    Doesn’t reducing CO2 mean the same thing as starving the trees to death?

    1. Greenhouse growers find that most food plants do best at about 1100 ppm of CO2, almost three times the current atmospheric level. Our current 400 ppm is on the low end of what’s needed for healthy plant growth.

  19. “The goal of the agreement is to keep the world from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial average.”

    A person endowed with a normal functional brain should understand how unbelievably stupid this is. Arrogance to its apex.

    “According to most temperature datasets, global average temperature is is already hovering around 1 degree Celsius warmer than pre-industrial levels. Many researchers climate researchers believe that the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions promised by countries that have ratified the agreement fall far short of meeting that goal.”

    No. Shit.

  20. And what sort of commitment is expected of India and China (as well as other third-world countries seeking to industrialize)? And how likely are they to obey those commitments, which no one can force them to do? (By contrast, the courts could force the US to obey its commitments regardless of what it does to our economy, or whether anyone else does, as long as the Democrats appoint the judges, who in that case would all be enviro-radicals.)

  21. Another reason to vote for Trump…

  22. Agreement ? compliance

  23. my Aunty Julia recently got a nearly new Nissan Altima Coupe only from working part time off a pc at home.
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  24. “If Trump is elected, the CMA1 in Marrakesh will feature much wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.”

    So what? In a warmer world they won’t need clothes.

  25. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  26. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  27. “If Trump is elected, the CMA1 in Marrakesh will feature much wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.”

    Another Mole for Trump in the media.

    Excellent!

  28. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.